It sounds like to me that they are agreeing to bring the buildings up to code and refurbish the units, but instead of eating that cost as the cost of operating their buildings, they're passing it on to the future tenants (who already pay a premium for maintenance fees through their rent). It sounds like all they're really paying for is general wear and tear replacement, but maybe I'm wrong, and these countertops and exterior signage will more than make up for the 40% price hike. It also sounds like they want nothing to do with the lower income crowd, seeing as they eliminated section 8 vouchers, are requiring new background checks, are charging another processing fee, and are raising rents closer to market-rates (which is outside the reach of much of the lower class, esp. Without section 8 assistance).

There has to be an opportunity for some infill in this space as well. Look at all that parking between each U shape. Ripe for a towers!

This area was decimated by the 90s/00s. Much of Best Buy's ramp could have liner townhomes facing 76th. The Knox P&R and maybe part of the Dick's parking lot is ripe for dense residential infill, considering the new Orange Line. And it would help screen the ugg BB HQ as a bonus.

mattaudio wrote:There has to be an opportunity for some infill in this space as well. Look at all that parking between each U shape. Ripe for a towers!

There's surface parking in all of those U shaped sections. Unless you're going to fund the enormous cost of digging and building parking below grade, I don't see anyone doing this anytime soon. We do not have the density to warrant this type of development yet! Not to mention that half of the building's units face that inner U, meaning a tower would block all of those apartment's views. Not a very wise investment.

mattaudio wrote:This area was decimated by the 90s/00s. Much of Best Buy's ramp could have liner townhomes facing 76th. The Knox P&R and maybe part of the Dick's parking lot is ripe for dense residential infill, considering the new Orange Line. And it would help screen the ugg BB HQ as a bonus.

I'm pretty sure Best Buy did not want to have to deal with town home owners abutting it's property. Seems like a mix that wouldn't be good for someone. Could the buildings have been developed differently - sure. But they are what they are - and a lot has changed in the 15 years since they were built. As for the Knox P&R and the Dick's parking lot - most all of that land will be used for the updated 35W/494 interchange redo and widening, when/if that ever happens. So I'd guess that building housing or office space would be prohibited.

mattaudio wrote:There has to be an opportunity for some infill in this space as well. Look at all that parking between each U shape. Ripe for a towers!

There's surface parking in all of those U shaped sections. Unless you're going to fund the enormous cost of digging and building parking below grade, I don't see anyone doing this anytime soon. We do not have the density to warrant this type of development yet!

Underground parking is expensive, but I don't think it's inconceivable that you might take out one apartment building and replace with a multi-level structured parking that could replace all the surface spots. That would at least open up space to complete the "U" shapes with a fourth wall, and create a more attractive environment for tenants.

The parking situation is one of the areas that seems most problematic for renting it at rates comparable to new buildings, that mostly have underground parking. Underground parking is safer for the car (sheltered from elements and break-ins), and much more aesthetic for the site. I don't think they intend to do anything major like this, but I hope they'll at least have landscaping to soften the big parking area.

I agree with HiawathaGuy's details on Knox P&R. It's empty surface parking as a "reserve" for the interchange expansion. I do like the idea of adding intensity around the Orange Line station site, however. There's other potential new apartments in the area, like a proposed senior building colocated on the site of St. Richard's Church

I have a friend who has an apartment here, so I've been inside quite a few times. It's definitely worn and needs work, though it's not falling apart or anything like that. It's like a lot of older apartment complexes in the suburbs that were the Elans, Limes, and Blues of their day but are showing their age now. While I think my friend will be fine, and may choose to keep living there, it won't be an option for many of their tenants.

Since the apartments (or at least the building my friend is in) don't have central AC, I'm assuming the new owners are going to include that in the renovations, otherwise they will have a hard time justifying market rates.

mattaudio wrote:There has to be an opportunity for some infill in this space as well. Look at all that parking between each U shape. Ripe for a towers!

There's surface parking in all of those U shaped sections. Unless you're going to fund the enormous cost of digging and building parking below grade, I don't see anyone doing this anytime soon. We do not have the density to warrant this type of development yet! Not to mention that half of the building's units face that inner U, meaning a tower would block all of those apartment's views. Not a very wise investment.

mattaudio wrote:This area was decimated by the 90s/00s. Much of Best Buy's ramp could have liner townhomes facing 76th. The Knox P&R and maybe part of the Dick's parking lot is ripe for dense residential infill, considering the new Orange Line. And it would help screen the ugg BB HQ as a bonus.

I'm pretty sure Best Buy did not want to have to deal with town home owners abutting it's property. Seems like a mix that wouldn't be good for someone. Could the buildings have been developed differently - sure. But they are what they are - and a lot has changed in the 15 years since they were built. As for the Knox P&R and the Dick's parking lot - most all of that land will be used for the updated 35W/494 interchange redo and widening, when/if that ever happens. So I'd guess that building housing or office space would be prohibited.

Mdcastle wrote:Even when I visited 20 years ago it looked like it could use a remodel.

I lived there 18 years ago. I enjoyed the apartment. I believe our rent was around $590/month for a 1 bedroom.
I'll be curious to see what sort of updates they make to the exterior as well. My current 7th floor desk view overlooks 76th & Penn, so I'll have a nice bird's eye view.

Further restrictions include income and credit score requirements. Management is looking for tenants who earn at least two and a half times their rent amount while carrying a credit score of at least 625.

“They’re getting rid of everything to do with poor people,” said a 49-year-old Crossroads resident who requested her name be kept confidential to avoid any conflict with the new owners.

As noted in the story, with rental vacancies in the area extremely low, we will probably see a lot more of this. With no knowledge of anything I predict Westside Village in Hopkins could see this within a few years the closer SWLRT gets. Maybe even Meadowbrook Manor in SLP?

The good news is Kensington Park, when viewed in isolation, is an attractive, successful project that mixes uses well and adds tax base to the city. Where it falls short is adding to the walkability and multi-modalism of the city, but this can be mostly blamed on its surrounding context and ongoing decisions that favor automobile use

The property has 14(!) small retail/restaurant slots. Even though it is a full city block, that is ridiculously impressive for the location, a block off 494. Hell, that would be impressive # of doors for a new development ANYWHERE in Minneapolis. Sure, not all tenants maintain their entrances to both Lyndale AND the parking lot, but most of them do, even if the parking lot is the "primary" entrance.

If this isn't gentrification I don't know what is. It sure doesn't seem right that a landlord can just refuse to lease to people that have been living there for years. If they can pay the rent, who cares how they do it?

Ostensibly, it's about getting rid of people with high-risk financials. If somebody has a low credit score, or the cost of rent is too large a share of their income, they *may* make rent, but there are more likely to be months where they don't. Eviction is an expensive, slow process, so obviously they want to target people who are least likely to cause a problem.

But that doesn't quite explain why people with great rental histories for years are being turned away. I think implicitly, it has a lot to do with changing the image of the complex -- by attracting more "choice" tenants (to use vaguely offensive transit lingo), and turning away people who would make those choice tenants uncomfortable.

acs wrote:But can they pay enough in rent to pay for the needed remodels and upgrades to the property?

I'd make the argument that a portion of the rent covers maintenance and upkeep. Just because the previous landlord didn't allocate funds towards repairs AND sold the dilapidated complex at a discount to the new landlord, doesn't transfer the burden to the tenants. It's the new landlords burden, since a rehabbed complex would have cost more, and the discount they got on the sale offsets the inevitable rehab expense. But they want the discount AND charge tenants for the rehab (effectively charging the tenants twice).

Stone countertops are a big differentiator for a lot of people, it sounds kinda silly but it kinda makes sense. Apartments inside really aren't that different from one another and a stone countertop can be a huge differentiator for a lot of people.